Our bankruptcy practice is devoted primarily to representing defendants in preference and fraudulent conveyance actions brought pursuant to Sections 547 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. We also routinely... Read More

We are committed to knowing preference and fraudulent conveyance defense litigation inside out. This means reviewing and analyzing hundreds of preference and fraudulent conveyance judicial... Read More

We focus on defending preference and fraudulent conveyance claims. Our focus works and we can prove it:
We represented a nationally known brand, a sportswear manufacturer, against a $900,000.00...Read More

Mr. Jones has practiced bankruptcy law for over two decades. His primary focus is representing corporate defendants in preference and fraudulent conveyance litigation. Mr. Jones has a national client base and has also represented corporate clients based in Europe and the Far East.....Read More

N

S

CN

CB

C

R

V

NL

W

A

Seventh Circuit Affirms Ruling in a Telecom...

Learn more about our network of counsels.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Here are the latest case news.
Here are the clawback news.
Firm’s representation is past cases.
Subscribe and receive our latest newsletter.
Watch our latest videos.
See all our references.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.

Seventh Circuit Affirms Ruling in a Telecom Company Bankruptcy Case

Southern District of Indiana, September 22, 2017 – Debtor, a telecommunications retailer paid the Defendant, one of its wholesale suppliers, roughly $1.9 million during the 90 days before the Debtor was forced into bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee sought to recapture those payments under § 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code as avoidable preferences. The bankruptcy judge rejected the Defendant’s ordinary-course defense but ruled that the new value advanced by the Defendant during the preference period was sufficient enough to make the Debtor’s preferential payments unavoidable under §547(c)(4). The District Judge and the Seventh Circuit also affirmed. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the Debtor’s assignment of debt and contractual rights to an affiliate did not have the effect of repaying a creditor for new value. Further, there was no causal relationship between the Defendant’s new value and the Debtor’s debt assignment and the reasons for the assignment and assumption agreement were entirely unrelated to the new-value services the Defendant provided. Since the Defendant advanced subsequent new value that remained unpaid, the Seventh Circuit held that the Debtor’s preferential transfers were unavoidable.